-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
- Status
Same as it ever was. I would encourage those who have questions to simply ask them. I had frequented this community since 2011 and every question I asked was answered promptly and informatively.
Last edited:
I think the bolded is an unfair generalisation. I'm not saying there hasn't been cases of some posters claiming those thing but people are in general well aware of the limitations of AAA development and the lower powered Switch hardware. In regards to Capcom the broader picture wasn't about specific games missing the platform, it was that up until this year Capcom had only released one original game at all.
Comparing the landscape of today's industry and the way it handles multiplatform releases to the early 90s is, frankly, nonsensical. "Why ISN'T Sakura Taisen a multiplat?" is the correct reaction to Sega's release strategy for the game. The reality for most exclusive releases these days seem to fall into any number of categories: platform-holder invested money into the project/has some sort of contract, the developer is small and possibly can't handle multiplatform releases (becoming less convincing as a reason as time goes on), it's the platform that would sensibly consume the vast vast majority of sales anyway and thus a multiplatform release could maybe be seen as unnecessary. Saying that there have always been dumb exclusive platform releases that make no sense doesn't really contribute to any understanding of why Sega decided on it this time. It's really just a roundabout way of saying the decision was dumb, which is absolutely true but the same conclusion can and should be drawn with better logic instead of "well people always have done weird stuff"
The thread doesn't paint everything as bias come on, that talk has mostly centered on Nagoshi/Harada and Falcom.
I'm pretty sure (though maybe misremembered) in the case of FFXV the team mentioned later on that they attempted to get it running natively on the switch to unsatisfactory result.
On top of what Oregano said, the issue with Falcom is they were multiplat developer, until the vita died, and they don't publish any switch ports themselves. You can't build an audience on late full price ports published by another company. Won't even get the same kind of advert lead up.
The falcom hates Nintendo thing isn't even us, it's from Japan and is a joke/exaggeration.
That does ring a bell somewhat.
Yeah, actually worth noting that the EVO versions of their games are an example of Falcom outsourcing development to partners. What has happened with NIS and Clouded Leopard is that those companies have licensed the games from Falcom to publish and produced Switch(and PC ports) themselves. It's a fundamentally different relationship.
Maybe I let certain posts color my general impression of broader discussion? I have definitely read a few of these multiple times (multiple discussions on the GPD Win in this context). It just seems like a considerable amount of time in these threads is spent on what games aren't but should be on Switch and what individuals we can hold accountable. It also seems like bias is generally presumed to be the most likely factor at play, even when others may be.
I understand that the industry is in a different place, and if it wasn't clear, I am personally confused by the game not releasing on Switch.
Just wow at the way this whole situation was handled, getting rid of regulars for the most petty of reasons including Chris of all people and letting the trolls flow in, crazy. Not looking forward to the way these threads will look in the future.
[SFC] Super Metroid _Retail/Nintendo Power_ <ACT> (Nintendo) {1994.03.19} (¥9.800) - 508.698
[FCM] Metroid |Disc System| <ACT> (Nintendo) {1986.08.06} (¥2.600) - 1.040.000
[SFC] Super Metroid _Retail/Nintendo Power_ <ACT> (Nintendo) {1994.03.19} (¥9.800) - 508.698
That's definitely happened a few times, I think it was only really notable for RE7 though which launched around the same time as Switch, and also had the overhead for a VR mode at the time.
Square Enix held a GDC talk about the procedural generation of animations for mechs (that looks a lot like Front Mission)
Look, there's not a lot of hot goss for us Front Mission fans to talk about these days, so we have to make do with stuff like this! I saw it pop up on Famitsu a couple of hours ago, but apparently SE held... Animation Summit: From Design: Full Procedural Animations for Mechs At GDC 2021. I'm not...
www.resetera.com
Edit: God I hope S-E gives FM one last chance. Like, maybe with an actual FM SRPG this time.
Even then, it did not go particularly well. When Sen no Kiseki was released on Vita, it was more or less a disaster. I remember, because I owned this version. Opening certain doors could produce minute long loading times. The framerate dropped to less than 5 seconds during one late game section of the game. If I recall, Falcom was forced to release multiple patches to improve the performance of the game, one being weeks after I had already finished the game. There was no shortage of fan criticism for this release. Unless Sony waived some fees, this couldn't have been cheap. If Falcom had been a competent multiplatform developer, maybe Ys VIII PS4 and Vita would have released at the same time.
I understand that the price point might be an issue for these versions, but it was always going to involve a partnership with some other company, because even when they release titles like Sen III and IV on hardware that should be able to handle them with ease, severe FPS drops during cutscenes and other performance issues are common. I am guessing they are rushing these titles out. (Maybe they should have hired more people after Ao saw a surprise jump in sales over Zero ...)
I am very aware of Falcom, because until recently, I bought all of the Trails games upon release (starting with Ao). I'd say "multiplat developer" is stretching it. Falcom released games on both Vita and PS3 because they were able to use the same engine that was ostensibly designed to make said process seamless.
Even then, it did not go particularly well. When Sen no Kiseki was released on Vita, it was more or less a disaster. I remember, because I owned this version. Opening certain doors could produce minute long loading times. The framerate dropped to less than 5 seconds during one late game section of the game. If I recall, Falcom was forced to release multiple patches to improve the performance of the game, one being weeks after I had already finished the game. There was no shortage of fan criticism for this release. Unless Sony waived some fees, this couldn't have been cheap. If Falcom had been a competent multiplatform developer, maybe Ys VIII PS4 and Vita would have released at the same time.
I understand that the price point might be an issue for these versions, but it was always going to involve a partnership with some other company, because even when they release titles like Sen III and IV on hardware that should be able to handle them with ease, severe FPS drops during cutscenes and other performance issues are common. I am guessing they are rushing these titles out. (Maybe they should have hired more people after Ao saw a surprise jump in sales over Zero ...)
I feel like the Switch version that does exist indicates that if they could put a native Switch version on the platform, they would have. I can't imagine it being Plan A. (Especially when I believe it ended up being Japan exclusive, presumably because internet infrastructure is not as reliable elsewhere?)
The threads don't even paint a picture like that, you are grossly exaggerating and grossly misrepresenting what the threads discuss here. While not everyone here is tech savvy, they aren't exactly tech illiterate either to the point of claiming every should be ported to the switch, and they do not argue that a game receiving several coats of downgrades is perfectly justifiable to get it to run on the platform. What people discussed with RE, based on leaked information, is about a game that is targeting the switch has the potential to do really well in JAPAN, and nothing more.
What people discuss with FF, is more about reaching the widest possible audience; in japan they coincide that the SWITCH getting a version for itself would stave off the decline of the series in the region perhaps but they do not claim that the games must target the switch worldwide at all. SE has been chasing that worldwide appeal that widens the series, in the same way that MHW does, yet they do choose for exclusive software for one platform either perm or timed, and treat the other platforms as an afterthought. IF SE wants that MHW moment, then actually doing the effort of being Day and Date multiplat and not relying on a single platform is what they should aim for.
No one even comments on FFXV for the switch or the pocket edition for it, the game is brought up to show a comparison of how 16 will decline compared to 15 WW because on a lesser amount of platforms to launch on WW. Even if XBox is small, it isn't zero, the sales for the game on the platform do matter. And to get that wide appeal that SE covets, they have to do the wide appeal approach. Granted, a JRPG and a Boss hunting sim are two radically different types of titles.
Falcom is an entire anomaly, because they rather take a game and port down from a higher platforms hat requires more resources, rather than take the lower platform, make the game around it and port to the higher powered platform when their games are not visual spectacles. And they aren't even a big company, so their resources are already limited as is. They get criticized because rather than go from Point A to Point B, they go from A to C to B, that has no rhyme or reason to it. They haven't bothered to grow the audience on a different platform, but now we see that their next platform to develop for isn't so responsive to games period, people bring it up because it is, as I would put it, a weird choice to make. Admittedly, none of us know their financial situation, but you can see that their target is not the switch period, you account for the platforms in dev, they aren't. Spending more resources to port it to the platform raises eyebrows, and their next target is on the PS5 to which is begs the question: Will they be ok when the platform has pathetic software in the region, and domestic sales surely make a notable amount of the units sold?
It's not even so much of "Falcon hates N", it's more of "Falcon, what are you doing…?" Not even PC is getting day and date, no one actually believes they hate the company, just that they are making some… questionable decisions that raise eyebrows as to why take the presumably lengthier path.
Danganronpa I'm not even gonna comment much on that, we been know that they were pushing for the Vita at some point and were seemingly MIA when they had another option to add (which is "similar" to the Vita, except it actually is successful) and weren't doing that….
In essence, I'm noticing that there has been a misrepresentation, misinterpretation, miscommunication or whatever have you when it comes to the media create threads, because I'm noticing that a lot of people tend to come in here or pass by here and they kind of make the sweeping statements that don't even align with what's actually going on, ather than ask "is this really true" or "is it this that or the third", they just come with these grossly exaggerated and grossly not even realistic statements on what's actually going on. The discussion is not about poor begging, it is not about platform warring, it is about a market analysis of the situation. What is brought to attention though is that we see the market and we see the shift in the market but then we see a certain few they were don't follow the market at all and that brings the question for what reason are they not following the regular market trends and that's what people discuss now, of course there are bad faith posts from some regulars and some passerby's a.k.a. drive-by posters who never post in the threads.
that isn't a say that there hasn't been an unnecessary amount of hostility in these threads that I've noticed in the past couple of months, with many snide remarks, sarcasm that's unnecessary and some low blows from here and there with the tagline "LOL" whenever it's convenient, but there's also a misrepresentation and gross exaggeration of what's going on these threads and it's kind of tiring to get people who don't post to suddenly post and with a post has nothing to do with actually what's going on. I can understand if Chris never wants to come back now because reading the threads for like the past couple of like weeks, hell, months you can see that there has been a clockwork of drive-by and trolls.
Hell, in one of the previous threads, someone was banned for a month and it was a person that is a notoriously bad faith poster, when they've been doing it since like February. And that was roughly around before I started posting here (in the MC threads) after lurking for a long while beforehand. Who's to say they haven't done it before? I do not know, I don't follow them or anyone that closely to do that, I only remembered that one poster being banned for a month
I avoided talking about this because I didn't want to, but this shit is wack at how it's panning out. If its dead then it's an even lesser reason to even come here.
Really (aimed at anyone lurking), if you want to post in these threads simply post, if you want to ask a question simply ask, if you want to engage simply engage, if you want to learn simply be open to learn and understand a different perspective that someone may have. If you find it disrespectful or offensive at how you were replied to, then you can report it as now we have guidelines for MC Threads now.
The crux of it is that they were still a multiplat dev that released games themselves. Having another publisher release their switch titles is not a default strategy, especially since neither of the two publishers they work with are publishing these games with a focus on Japan. For NIS as an example, it's absolutely NA and Europe, with Japan as just a bonus. In the end while outsourcing would be expected, not publishing is what raises eyebrows.
There was also rumors about SE wanting to put Kingdom Hearts 3 on it, then same stuff for the collection, so yeah they really did try.
I wouldn't be surprised if those projects get revived on Switch 2.
Yeah I understood. I mostly take exception with what followed "why isn't a multiplatform release?" I guess I'm not entirely sure what the insinuation was from it. I initially took it as commentary on how criticism of absurd release strategies like Sakura Wars' should be talked about, which I didn't agree with at all. It feels like handling the decision with kid gloves in a way that almost feels dishonest. I think it's fine to call a dumb decision a dumb decision without bringing up that there have always been wacky choices made.
Now I'm reading it again I think it's probably commentary on the bias argument, considering that's what most of your post was about. If that's the case then I don't think it's as disagreeable, although I also don't think it answers why they made the decision in the first place. But I reckon a lot of people would like to know why they made that decision, including some at Sega, because it really does defy all logic.
I said this earlier when the guidelines were posted, but I think the bias thing is tricky because the conclusions many have drawn over the years haven't been out of thin air and have been the result of years of observing decisions these companies have made. I personally don't care much, but I found it was mostly just used to attempt to explain the otherwise unexplainable. There aren't many logical reasons one can use to explain why Sakura Wars didn't release on Switch, and quite frankly at that point the bias explanation looks about as likely as any other. There aren't many logical reasons one can use to explain why it took like 4.5 years for Danganronpa to get ported to Switch. There aren't many logical reasons one can use to explain why Falcom still doesn't develop multiplatform day 1 releases. Bias is mostly used as a crutch to explain the unexplainable by some members, I think, and it helps that there's usually some kind of behind the scenes things people are able to point at to make the point (Spike Chunsoft's "why aren't people buying a Vita?" thing, Nagoshi's "Sony dinners" thing and various comments made in interviews, I don't actually know if Falcom has said or done anything in specific outside of what their release schedule has looked like).
In my experience mostly lurking these threads since signing up for this forum, the bias stuff was mostly aimed at situations where there was no other good answer. It's why I think the new rule is pretty annoying and is going to be difficult for a lot of people to work around. I'm sure it's going to lead to a lot of snark and "sub-tweeting" around insinuating bias but not explicitly stating it because of a misguided new rule. I think it's dumb when aimed at AAA titles like Resident Evil 2 or Final Fantasy XV, though. Those have logical explanations. But I don't want to see people catching bans for questioning whatever the fuck Bandai Namco is doing with Idolmaster.
Shit this looks cool. Oh well.Like this of sorts?
Don't go to the link, it's dead.
KH Collection was probably a result of KH3 not coming, not that it couldn't run
I'm having a real hard time thinking of any. The only ones, if you want to get straight to the source material that started it all, are Metroid and Super Metroid. As a huge fan of the series (Super and Metroid Prime are both in my all-time top 10 list), it sucks, but I'm not sure what can be done to make the series more appealing without fundamentally changing what I love about it.
If you want to keep the conversation about Falcom/the upcoming Kuro no Kiseki simple and within the letter of the new guidelines there's not much discussion to be had.
As a publisher they are still mainly reliant on their domestic sales where they self publish, their last few games have continuously declined, Kuro no Kiseki is almost certainly going to decline and its international release is at least three years away.🤷♀️
As a publisher they are still mainly reliant on their domestic sales where they self publish, their last few games have continuously declined, Kuro no Kiseki is almost certainly going to decline and its international release is at least three years away.🤷♀️
LostCauseUnite!
I am not new to Media Create threads and have both read and (I believe) participated in them since before the creation of this forum. While not everyone makes these claims, they have happened. (The asterisks are meant to be my own commentary.) I understand that a lot of the discussion that goes on is ostensibly sales related. Often times, it reads more like system wars to me. This is the main reason I stopped posting in them.
Regarding Falcom, I'd say that they are in a difficult place. The Kiseki series requires them to build an audience over time. There were probably a number of factors as to why the Kiseki series didn't start seeing 3DS multiplats to build up a Nintendo audience earlier, or why they were Vita/PS3 in the first place. I do agree that the future of the series is in question unless gear up to a postion where they are releasing simultaneous Switch/PS4/PS5 multiplats.
The giant caveat to everything that I am saying is that I believe more developers need to start putting their games on Switch and fast. I have also been wondering if, by the time the PS6 comes around, the platform will look more like the Xbox did last generation (only receiving multiplats of the most notable releases, primarily from S-E, while the vast majority of titles target a Nintendo platform.)
lightning16
I understand that people can turn to "bias" when other explanations are not available, but I can't imagine it being a likely one in most situations. I think it also tends to leads to discussions that stray farther and farther from anything resembling a sales discussion, often focusing heavily on specific individuals. I do think that people should be able to question why certain games aren't on a certain platform or suggest they should be for sales reasons.
I also think there are some very understandable reasons why we're not seeing day 1 Falcom multiplats for the reasons I've outlined in this thread. (They probably aren't currently capable of doing so.)
I am not new to Media Create threads and have both read and (I believe) participated in them since before the creation of this forum. While not everyone makes these claims, they have happened. (The asterisks are meant to be my own commentary.) I understand that a lot of the discussion that goes on is ostensibly sales related. Often times, it reads more like system wars to me. This is the main reason I stopped posting in them.
Regarding Falcom, I'd say that they are in a difficult place. The Kiseki series requires them to build an audience over time. There were probably a number of factors as to why the Kiseki series didn't start seeing 3DS multiplats to build up a Nintendo audience earlier, or why they were Vita/PS3 in the first place. I do agree that the future of the series is in question unless gear up to a postion where they are releasing simultaneous Switch/PS4/PS5 multiplats.
The giant caveat to everything that I am saying is that I believe more developers need to start putting their games on Switch and fast. I have also been wondering if, by the time the PS6 comes around, the platform will look more like the Xbox did last generation (only receiving multiplats of the most notable releases, primarily from S-E, while the vast majority of titles target a Nintendo platform.)
Technically, but arguably not meaningfully. Certainly not meaningful in the context of a Switch/PS4 multiplat situation.
lightning16
I understand that people can turn to "bias" when other explanations are not available, but I can't imagine it being a likely one in most situations. I think it also tends to leads to discussions that stray farther and farther from anything resembling a sales discussion, often focusing heavily on specific individuals. I do think that people should be able to question why certain games aren't on a certain platform or suggest they should be for sales reasons.
I also think there are some very understandable reasons why we're not seeing day 1 Falcom multiplats for the reasons I've outlined in this thread. (They probably aren't currently capable of doing so.)
Last edited:
to be clear this is the equivalent of an anonymous 4chan post, don't remember which message board it was found on
User Banned (3 Days): Ignoring staff post and previous warning yesterday
I don't "hope" for Chris to come back to MC, he's been accused, without any basis, of lying by a mod, banned, and he's been dealing with trolls since forever.
As a sales "amateur" and someone working in the industry on the distribution side (pc), thanks for your hard work Chris and keep us updated on your plan, if any.
As a sales "amateur" and someone working in the industry on the distribution side (pc), thanks for your hard work Chris and keep us updated on your plan, if any.
That's good to know. I'd seen it thrown around but I wasn't sure where it came from lol.
It's an absolute nonsense post(the origin I mean), the only reason it got any traction is that it was posted a month before his role changed.
I feel like I vaguely recall Hollow Knight doing decently on digital charts but of course we never got any hard numbers. Did SotN not do great?
It came from 5ch. I think the main thing that made people pay attention to it was that it was posted 49 days before he was reassigned.
I'm more focusing on releasing games themselves. Like you said, they need to build an audience, and having other publishers handle switch ports long after release just won't work. It seems clear to most that Falcom knows it needs to release its games on switch, they'd have NISA's sales data telling them as much, it's just frustration with their current strategy that could hurt their series long term, especially given how rapidly PS is falling in Japan.
If the person who posted that was in fact leaking his demotion, seems likely they were just trying to make Nagoshi look as bad as possible. Maybe they were mad about his Puyo comments? Although it's been a while so I could be mixing the timing.
Ah that's not terrible at least.
I'd really be curious to see what the best selling Metroidvania has sold in Japan. Might just be a naturally low ceiling to that "genre" in Japan.
Nomura said that it was for technical reasons, and that sounds weird
what kind of arcane magicks did they pull to port that? they lost the source to KH1, so I'm guessing they had to do some crazy shit to it
The broadcast where he made the derogatory remarks at Puyo players was the end of July and the apology was in August. News of his demotion came February the following year.
It seems like the recent Switch releases are being released at a decent pace, so maybe by the time they get to whatever comes after Kuro 2, we'll see a simultaneous release (if not transitioning to Nintendo being the primary platform for the series, given the performance of the PS5 ...)
Oh, I absolutely agree that they need to make a change.
They remade it all for PS3.
Even in that case, it's a PS3 game ... Maybe it's a cartridge problem
in the days of "the disc is just a key", I'm not too sure why this is a problem. I know discs have installers on them, but still. KH Collection would sit at the top of the digital charts for a good long while
When a mod says that you are a troll and is spreading misinformation because you didn't use the original article in japanese but used a translation of that article, you didn't read the book and uses extrapolations to offend others... would you come back?
And also when a lot of members enter in this thread and say that this threads have a toxic environment - why should the regulars ones be back to discuss sales?
There are a lot of hyperbole in ResetEra and it's more offensive to a game developer read some people saying "this game is dog shit" and get a free pass than "Nagoshi or Kondo has a bias against Nintendo". While the behavior or some in this threads wasn't exactly welcome to new users it was mainly because the regulars were fed up with the trolls and their alt accounts that got free pass, that the way that the mod team handled it was 10 times worse.
I don't really know, I'm just saying that "technical problems" was his reasoning
I couldn't possibly comment on that. Suffice to say just like with their international releases Falcom continues to do what they have done previously.
That's plausible, and for the record I don't think anyone thought it was the actual reason. It was just getting memed on.
Falcom titles are declining but they do not sell milion copies in Japan.
Just above 100/200 k copies.
They do not Need mainstream fans support, their core audience Is enought to break even of make profits.
Imho. They are not like FF which used to sell to a bigger audience and Is more affected from a Low install base.
All imho
- Status